03/05/2001 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

03/03/99 15:44 LAW OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE 4 651 464 4568 NO.592 P03 110 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 2 • developers are expected to pay 50% of all trail construction costs for trails located in the plat. For the reasons discussed herein, 1 have strong concerns about each of these dedication fees. Minnesota law specifically authorizes municipalities to require dedication for parks and trails in the subdivision approval process. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 2d (1998) provides: "Dedication... In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation- purposes or for public use as parks,...trails...or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval...." It is obvious from the statute that the City may impose a dedication requirement and accept either land, cash or a combination of land and cash. However, the statute sets forth two important conditions. First, the size of the dedication must be reasonable, i.e., the City may require that "...a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated...." Second, the statute also makes clear that the amount of the dedication must be "...based on the fair market value of the land...." The statute has been interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts and a review of those decisions is instructive. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976), the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of § 462.358 as applied to a Bloomington ordinance that provided: as a general rule, it is reasonable to require dedication of 10% of the land or payment of 10% of undeveloped land value." The Court noted that the Bloomington ordinance set forth the 10% requirement as "a general rule" and that the developer could obtain judicial review. Under the facts of that case, the Court was not prepared to say that the 10% requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court did note, however, as follows: "Thus, there exists the possibility that the developer...will be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the city's park and recreation costs. While the city has apparently made a